- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What exactly do you mean by that? I'm pretty sure you don't mean God has a face and it emits light.
I haven't taken the time to read through this whole thread, so sorry if this has been said already. There is a huge leap in logic in the OP when he goes from an infinite series of causes and effects to concluding that there has to be an uncaused cause. If it is an infinite series of cause and effect, then by definition there would be no original cause because the chain of cause and effect would go back forever. That is the definition of infinite. The OP's logic would only hold true if he could prove the chain of cause and effect was actually finite. I also question the logic behind suggesting that a complex being like God is more likely to be uncaused than the matter and energy at the start of the universe.
I highly doubt that mankind will ever have sufficient answers as to the beginning of the universe.
I suggest you then read the whole thread. It has been said already, and like Eudomist does constantly, it's simply just re-asserting what I refuted.
Yet you have not refuted it. An infinite series of causes and effects cannot have a first cause by definition. You came up with an argument that the infinite causes was a single effect (which you merely stated but did not prove), but there is no beginning for a first cause.
If it is infinite, then there is no beginning. How can you have a first cause if there is no beginning?
Ok I will re-write was has been written. Arguments in logic sometimes go on this form.
Suppose A is true.
A implies B.
B is not true.
Therefore A is false.
So every effect has a cause.
A series of effect is an effect. Infinite series of effects, in an effect. If you say is any of the chain not any effect, you will say, no every part of the chain is an effect, but there is infnite series of effect.
Like a body is a series of effects, but we say "the body" is an effect, it's the same with an infinite series of effects.
So it needs Uncaused Cause because the whole thing is an effect. The whole infinite chain of cause and effect, is a an effect.
Now if there is an Uncaused Caused, yet it's true, there is not an infinite chain of cause and effect.
This is true. Therefore an infinite chain is impossible.
Didnt we dispense with this earlier?...since a series of effects, needs a cause...
Didnt we dispense with this earlier?
.
Religious people posit God as such thing. I propose the universe as such a thing.
.
Because you don't get it.
We observe causality as an aspect of existence because of our own dependence on our perception and appropriation of that input.
This is none-sequitor.If we can agree that causality is at least a reasonable property of existence to posit in regards to everything, it would be more reasonable to conclude that we cannot know anything beyond speculation about the nature of what happens before the Big Bang's singularity.
if you A -> B -> C ->A circular, it's proven to be false and impossible. In fact, when argument is made on such a circle, we say this is circle reasoning, and can see it makes no sense.At best one could posit that existence is cyclical (which doesn't negate the universe's existence or finding purpose in existence),
That sentence means absolutely nothing, those are just words strung together because you think they sound good.I mean God's living Name.
Axiomatic statements are only true if you take those as somehow unquestionable. Logic is based on these axioms and not all of them necessarily apply equally in all situations we can consider, such as cosmology or ethics for two complex areas of investigation. Therefore logic is not unquestionable, but does indeed have practical applications within considerations of metaphysical and other questions such as the one that we are considering at present: why is there something rather than nothing or a variant thereof, how did the something we observe to exist come into existence?We observe many logical things, but we can know they are true and the logic is true and evidently true without doubt, and not simply a matter of observation.
This is none-sequitor.
First off I didn't explicitly posit an infinite chain, only that reasonably if we follow your logic, a first cause is only necessary for a final absolute answer, which is not what one necessarily seeks for in a scientific or philosophical investigation. At best we seek out answers that have practical applications and give us a feeling of accomplishment, not necessarily security or comfort which are best found in religion and the arts to an extent.if you A -> B -> C ->A circular, it's proven to be false and impossible. In fact, when argument is made on such a circle, we say this is circle reasoning, and can see it makes no sense.
It's the same with cause and effect, to go in circles make no sense.
However, this is still an infinite chain, which has been refuted in this thread.
That sentence means absolutely nothing, those are just words strung together because you think they sound good.
That sentence means absolutely nothing, those are just words strung together because you think they sound good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?